These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Whoa, it would be great if you sent along the pdf, Bill. I am really interested in the AL and DI alternatives, too. Before commenting, I would rather read and come up to date on what the current Englemann is about in Australia. Unlike many here, I am an amateur in my knowledge of Halliday's work which I see as very similar to what I have been able to put together from the teachings of my colleagues. I am more or less floored by the idea that the ideas upon which DI were founded are unexceptional. When you misunderstand things as badly as I evidently do in this case, best to sit down and wait for some more information. A question: What do you believe to be the relationship between the idea of a Zone of Proximal Develoment and scaffolding? Are they synonyms? Can they be joined as in Zoped/scaffolding? If not, why not? I know that views on this matter differ widely. I think that one's answer might guide the development of curricula. All very informative. mike On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Bill Kerr <billkerr@gmail.com> wrote: > hi Mike, > > Thanks for description of Engelmann's approach. It's not a distraction from > Bruner or Vygotsky. I did introduce Engelmann's approach at the beginning > since I'm very interested in the comparison b/w AL and that approach. > > Your earlier comment implied a critique of Engelmann. From the extracts you > provide now I can't see that critique so you will have to spell it out for > me more. > > Sorry, I'm not familiar with the nitty gritty details of the Cape York > Pearson / Engelmann implementation. I did write up the details of a recent > speech by Noel Pearson in which he claimed it was working. I posted that > link in my reply to Helen and will repeat it here: > > http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2011/12/ending-groundhog-day-of-educational.html > > Pearson has written an essay called "Radical Hope", which provides the > background to his choice of Engelmann's DI. I do have it as a pdf so let me > know if you want to read it. I'm a huge fan of Pearson but of course his > primary area of expertise is in indigenous affairs, not education. I find > his writings on indigenous matters quite electrifying. I'm not so sure > however that his principle of the radical centre has been applied to the > educational sphere. > > This section of Engelmann's bio, "Teaching Needy Kids in our Backward > system" goes a long way to explaining his theoretical basis, Theory of > Instruction, pp. 259-266. I'm definitely interested in continuing this > conversation. > > > > __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca